If You're Looking for Gandalf...
Just follow the signs to Middle Earth.







posted by Director_Mitch @ 4:00 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Ronco's Gut-B-Gone Now Covered by Medicare
Great.  Like the program isn't insolvant enough: Medicare redefines obesity as medical condition:

In a major decision that turns obesity from a personal failure to a medical problem, Medicare announced Thursday that it would remove barriers to covering anti-obesity treatments after 40 years of saying fat was not an illness and not covered.

Now slobs who can't control their eating or won't get off the couch can now stick it to the taxpayers.  I'd be in favor of it if there would no longer be people next to me on airplanes with guts spilling over into my seat, but my bet is that this move will do absolutely nothing to stop obesity.

Update: On a somewhat related write-up, Jim Carson has a very good article on why it's so difficult to lose weight.  The bottom line: it takes time and dedication, something Americans accustomed to instant gratification simply won' t do.


posted by Director_Mitch @ 9:56 AM (Permalink)
|

 
And They Bravely Ran Away
First Spain.  Now the Philippines.  Looks like we need to check the other parts of the ex-Spanish Empire to see where else their culture of cowardice and appeasement infected.  I guess South America is next.
 
And this is the culture that once provided fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms...








posted by Director_Mitch @ 9:29 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Whoopi Do
I doubt anyone but hard-core political followers on both sides really cares that Slim Fast fired one of their shills, and it isn't like Whoopi is going to be hurting for cash after being fired. I will say that the Marketing Manager in me sees this as a shrewd marketing move and not a political one.

Let's say that you are the Product Manager of Slim Fast and one of your spokeswomen says or does something stupid enough that you want to drop her. Do you make a big announcement and highlight the problem even more? No, you quietly drop the spokeswomen, air older commercials and move on until some new commercials finish production. The main goal is to contain the damage. This sort of thing happens more often than you might think and rarely makes the news outside the advertisement industry.

In this case, however, I think Slim Fast went forward with the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" maxim of advertising. The fact they fired her for political lampooning would be picked up in a big way in a charged election year, splashing SLIM FAST across the pages of every newspaper and TV news broadcast in the country. The left-wing firebrand women (an overwhelming percentage of their customers are women) who would be pissed off at Slim Fast for the firing aren't their customer base anyway - they're all vegetarians who don't shave their armpits - so this was really a smart move.

The result was millions of dollars of effective free advertising with little to no downside in alienating the current customer base.
 
Update: I am linking this article to Outside the Beltway's daily Traffic Jam, which is a roundup of everyone's favorite posts for the day.

Another Update: Well, my trackback isn't working, so I haven't been able to link to OTB.  My guess it's the artificial trackback I have to use since Blogger doesn't support it (I know, I know, I should move from Blogger...)


posted by Director_Mitch @ 11:20 AM (Permalink)
|

 
That'll Teach Those Hosers, Eh?
You do NOT want to get on the bad side of those Canadians:

Canada pulled its ambassador from Iran, which refuses to admit observers to the trial of a policeman over a Canadian journalist's fatal beating

If Iran doesn't relent, I understand Canada is going to disinvite them from the next keg party.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 6:59 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Cinematic Guilty Pleasures
While watching Independence Day this month (it now runs every year on, well, July 4), Mrs. Director referred to it as a guilty pleasure. Normally a guilty pleasure is something bad for you that you enjoy doing anyway, like eating lots of chocolate, maybe smoking. For a cinematic guilty pleasure, it means a movie that deep down inside you know is bad, but you enjoy watching anyway. I thought I would list a few movies that fall under that category (for me, anyway) and why:

Independence Day - Like the wife, I somehow like this stupid, sappy, hackneyed story of an alien invasion. I think it has to do with the strange combo of Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum, which works in this movie.

The Quick and The Dead - Gene Hackman is obviously relishing his over-the-top performance, which takes it from a bad western to an enjoyable experience.

Clueless - A teen movie? A chick flick? Normally this sort of movie would drive me into the next room, but I always end up enjoying the movie's humor and sweetness. Plus watching Alicia Silverstone in designer mini-skirts for 90 minutes is never a bad thing.

Blast from the Past - Yes, another Alicia Silverstone movie, so that's one plus. It has a stupid, unbelievable plot line, but somehow the movie manages to pull it off because of Brandon Fraser. I especially enjoy the dance scene. If you've never seen it, it's on TBS every other week or so.

Armageddon - Predictable plot line and lots of bad acting, but this one just makes the list. I think what does it is the ensemble team that is going on the drill - Rockhound, Dunkan and those guys - and the various things they go through before, during, and after the event.

Deep Blue Sea - Mutant sharks versus Samuel L. Jackson. What more do I need to say?

Star Trek: Nemesis - Maybe not so much a guilty pleasure as just going against the tide on this one. It got bad reviews, poor word of mouth, and it flopped at the box office. I rented it expecting not to like it, but finished it thinking "I sort of liked it". I thought of it more as a long episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than a movie, so my standards might have been lower.

Those are just off the top of my head, and if I sat down and thought about it I could probably add half dozen more, but have other things to do. Does anyone have any they would like to add?

posted by Director_Mitch @ 5:35 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Does He Sound Like a Hick or What?
For him or against him, you just have to admit that Edwards sounds like a back-woods hick with that accent. And before anyone blames me of regional bias, remember that I am from the South (Texas, anyway).

posted by Director_Mitch @ 8:17 AM (Permalink)
|

 
Tech Sector Slowdown?
A couple of recent articles regarding the tech industry point towards a slowdown in a sector that has been red-hot since late last year:

Merrill, Goldman downgrade chip sector on oversupply risk

Analysts, Industry Executives Spar Over Outlook (link requires free subscription)

I'm with the analysts on this one.

From my perch in the tech market, I see it as a sector that is growing, but the level of growth has slowed. This lower growth has taken a lot of companies by surprise, who were planning for >10% growth when it's going to be more like 4-5%. This has created an over-inventory situation that is now working its way through the tech supply chain.

Now 4-5% growth isn't bad . It's when you have capital expenditures and inventory building assuming twice that amount that leads to all sorts of problems, so the downgrades in tech shares, in my opinion, are warranted for the time being.

Why, oh why, can't this industry do decent forecasts? In the 15 years I've worked it tech I have yet to see this industry do it right.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 1:36 PM (Permalink)
|

 
How The Johns Avoid Taxes
No, I'm not talking about solicitors of prostitution, I am talking about the democratic nominees (Ed: not much difference). Opinion Journal has some interesting tidbits on how John Edwards sheltered 90% of his income from Medicare taxes:

While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a "subchapter S" corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder.

Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9% Medicare tax but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded more than 90% of his income.

So when he talks about the "Two Americas", he is talking about we who he wants to raise taxes on and people like him who can afford tax dodges?

A similar analysis hasn't been done on Kerry since he hasn't released his taxes - or at least his wife hasn't - and it's she who is footing the expenses for his $35 million private jet and five homes. We can only imagine the various schemes employed to avoid paying the "fair share" that they feel the rest of us aren't paying.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 1:16 PM (Permalink)
|

 
GOOG? GOGL? SRCH?
Why stay mum? What's the big deal?

Google said it plans to trade its shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market, the traditional home of tech and Internet start-ups, but stayed mum about its planned stock symbol.

We know that Nasdaq stocks use four characters instead of the NYSE three (five can be used on Nasdaq, but is rare) . We also know that companies typically use either an abbreviation of their name (INTL = Intel) or something clever about the company's business (SLOT used to be Anchor Gaming before it went bust). A quick look shows that GOGL (the most likely candidate) is open, as is GOOG (which is rather lame, actually). SRCH maybe?

As a side note on this topic, I should pass on a joke going around Wall Street when Rick's, a strip club, announced plans to go public (yes, there really is a publicly traded strip club). The word on the street was that it's symbol was going to be TITS. It ended up being RICK.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 3:19 PM (Permalink)
|

 
Low-Carb Diets: Trend or Fad?
There has been an ongoing dialog at Business Pundit in the comments sections of several postings about whether the low-carb diet craze is a new trend in the American diet or a short-term fad. This is more than just an academic argument since business ranging from food processors to franchises are going to invest one way or the other, and a wrong bet could mean a devastating loss for the business.

The WSJ today weighs in today on the side of fad. They make it hard to link to it on their paid site, but here are some of points from the article Some Food Makers Trim Low-Carb Plans as Trend Slows:

o Surveys state that the number of Americans who say they are on a low-cab diet peaked in February at 9% and is now down to 6-7%.

o Food makers are still cranking out low-carb foods and their sales are still climbing, but growth is slowing and they are starting to cut back on plans. Besides the drop-off of demand, the food industry's has been unable to charge a premium for low-cab fare, making new investments in the segment doubtful.

o Specialty products and stores like Castus Low-Carb Superstores and Accu-Carb, a low carb bread company, are seeing sales down by as much as 50% this year as the number of suppliers entering the market is swamping the overall demand.

Overall, I am on the "hype" side. I have no doubt that people lose weight on this diet, but I think the low-carb trend will be like other popular diets: a large portion of the population will try it at one point, but long term there will only be a small segment of the population that permanently changes their eating habits. The segment will probably be a large enough to support a few businesses and product lines, but there isn't going to be a mass change in the American diet. Companies should provide a product for this segment if it makes sense (by using the usual cost/risk analysis, ROI, and other tools we marketing managers have at our disposal), but companies shouldn't jump blindly into what is really a short-term fad.

posted by Director_Mitch @ 2:41 PM (Permalink)
|